Wednesday, October 31, 2012

There has been a lot of talk lately about "depathologization" of transsexualism and transgender behavior. Of course, these are two separate topics, which actually have nothing in common, thought, of course, the transgender kooks don't want you to know that.Now, what is ironic is, depathologization of transsexualism is not really that new of an idea. It has been around for several years, and was previously known as "Harry Benjamin Syndrome." Yes, that horrible thing that makes transgender kooks like Suzan Cooke and "Autumn" Sandeen rent their clothes and cry out was really about moving transsexualism from being a "mental illness" to recognizing it as a medical condition. Well, actually, at first, Cooke kind of embraced the idea until she realized it was competition for her "Women Born Transsexual" silliness.Oh, and note, I said Harry Benjamin Syndrome, not "Harry Benjamin's Syndrome," the phrasing preferred by a separate, and eventually unrelated movement that originated more in Europe, and which became somewhat extremist in certain views. Some dishonest "historians" attempt to conflate the two movements in order to discredit the Harry Benjamin Syndrome movement.

So, why do the kooks hate it so much? Well, in some cases, it is because it competed with the kooks own little patch of turf, and a lot of the people who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome did not necessarily agree with this, or that, kook's own agenda. For example, we did not embrace the idea that "transgression" was a valid reason to claim to be another sex.

Worse, those who endorsed Harry Benjamin Syndrome made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with transgender activism and that we rejected the transgender paradigm. That, of course, was too much for the gender fascists to accept.

The approach was simple, and straight forward. We asked that medical profession simply acknowledge that a small number of people are born with what is, in effect, a congenital condition where the brain is sexually differentiated at odds with at least part of the body. This condition resulted in an overwhelming desire to correct one's body to the extent that science allows. In another words, what some would call a true, or classic transsexual.

HBS, as it has come to be known, would have provided a basis for insurance coverage, which some are more than willing to sacrifice in their demands that doctors no longer consider people who think that simply claiming to be a different sex effectively changes their sex to be mentally ill. Uh, yes, that sounds crazy to me...but hey, most crazy people will tell you they are really the sane ones.

Another problem people had with the HBS movement was that we would not embrace the insanity of "surgery on demand," and actually endorsed tightening the criteria. While it is fortunate that most who should not have surgery now embrace the non-op paradigm, there is room for mistakes, particularly in cases where surgery is more easily obtained because of insurance or socialized medicine. For example, Natalie Reed, who recently admitted what I had already surmised, that he is a "pre-op" wrote a post in which he discusses his ambivalence towards SRS, but indicates that he will pursue it anyway. Reed is a mistake in the making. If one can live without surgery, then they should. Just because it is, effectively free, and just because one is able to talk a therapist into rubber stamping your request (far too many therapists are afraid to "just say NO!" to be people who are poor candidates, does not mean one should hope on the table thinking that surgery will somehow make it all right.

We have enough screwed up "post-ops" already. We don't need another who will either become a virulently anti-transsexual TG activist, or worse, decide that God does not approve of SRS because they made a mistake.

So, now we have yet another attempt to get transgender people out of the DSM. Of course, most could care less if transsexual are harmed, and for some, harming transsexuals would probably be a desirable side effect.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Roseanne Barr, for once, is right....Quite frankly, I have never cared for Roseanne Barr. Since the first time I ever saw her in a Pizza Hut commercial, through her years as a sitcom star, and her many outrageous stunts, I have always found her irritating, outrageous, and not at all likable.But, her comments about men forcing their way into women's space based on a claim of being "trans women" is dead on. And, I am not really all that surprised that a bunch of kooks have attacked her for speaking the truth. Simply put, they can't handle the truth.This all stems from the incident I wrote about a couple of weeks ago. Barr got the facts a bit wrong, saying that it occurred in Australia, not Washington State, but otherwise was right about this being simply wrong. This pervert has no business being in women's space, and especially not when he insists on forcing his nudity on teenage girls. I find it very interesting that, by and large, the "transgender activists" have pretty much pretended this story does not exist, except for viciously attacking Barr for not adhering to the party line. They don't quite have the courage to come out in support of the pervert, but they also lack the decency to admit that maybe things have gone a bit too far.Funny, in a way...the common cry we have heard whenever the bathroom issue comes up is, "We just want to pee in peace..." They throw fits, and complain that they are being accused of horrible things, when all they really want to do is just go in, use the bathroom, and leave in peace. That certainly seems reasonable. And for many transgender people, it is. Of course, there are those who are not at a point in their transition where they remotely are credible as women. You might think they would have the decency to delay their forays into the women's room until they are better able to fit in, but they often demand to be accepted.And now, we have a pervert, who openly speaks of his sexual deviations, who is demanding to be allowed to be present, nude, when other women are in the facility, and some of the more insane of the transgender activists are defending him.Barr is right, this is as stupid as the LGBT groups who were prepared to embrace NAMBLA as a cause. The problem this time is, common sense, and decency, do not seem likely to prevail.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Ah, it appears that Suzan Cooke is again engaged in that brand of cyberstalking and bullying that Cooke specializes in....the hypocritical kind. Cooke complains that I comment on things posted at "Women Born Transsexual," and claims that I devote a third of my blog to attacks on Cooke. And the Cooke takes offense at being invited here, to debate me. Of course, Cooke, or anyone else, is welcome here to debate on a level playing field where the only rule is no invading of privacy. Cooke, naturally declines, as Cooke never really ventures anywhere that Cooke is not in control.Now, Cooke also does not mention that I was banned from Women Born Transsexual for the horrible sin of welcoming Cooke to the blogosphere. Yes, I sent a simple, and actually friendly message, being quite willing to move past Cooke's nastiness after I made a suggestion that Cooke took offense to while I was a member of Cooke's private mailing list. Well, actually, Cooke's partner, Tina, took more offense, and targeted me, but that part never gets mentioned by Cooke. Oh, and what was that horrible suggestion? It was one, made to me by a friend, that transsexuals hire someone to be a spokesperson. This would allow those who are stealth (in Cooke World, like the rest of Tranny Land, this is called being a coward) to get the word out without having to give up privacy. Of course, Cooke has joined the many, the proud, the transgender and made sure that everyone know that Cooke used to be a dude, with full boy parts...because, after all, you can't transgress gender if no one knows.Cooke whines that "true stealth" is near impossible. There is truth in that remark, but it is truth that strains out, as they say, those tiny little gnats, while swallowing a camel whole. For those not up on ancient Middle Eastern humor, Jesus was making a joke about people who pick a tiny insect out of a bowl of soup, while gulping down an entire camel to illustrate a point. A real knee-slapper in His day... Simply put, yes, if someone really wants to probe into your background, say if you are running for public office, they might find out your situation. But, for all practical purposes, stealth is quite possible. Sure, someone doing a web search on my real name would discover that someone by that name was mentioned in various places in connection to transsexualism. They would also discover that a person by that name ran in Bay to Breakers. It wasn't me. They would discover that someone by that name is a member of the vestry of a church in Los Angeles. Nope, not me. They would discover lots of things about lots of people, none of whom are me.I choose to be relatively stealth because I am not interested in transgressing gender. That is not remotely my motivation. I am interested in something that people like Cooke, Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and others are not...having a normal life, as an ordinary woman. Sandeen objects that I refer to him with male pronouns, and call him a man. Not because I am calling him something he is not, he is a man, and he knows he is a man, and he really doesn't have any illusions that he is actually a woman. He is upset because I am disrespecting his gender transgression. I am not playing along with his demand that people suspend disbelief and reality and call him a "woman." Lots of things are public. I found out "Autumn" Sandeen's birth name at least a year before he decided to publicly reveal it. Unlike some jerks, who shall rename nameless, I chose to no reveal it, tempting as it would have been. Why? Because I am not a hypocrite. I would not appreciate having it done to me, and so I don't do that to others. I respect people's wishes with regard to privacy. Cooke, being a true bully, does not. Funny how that works...Cooke calls me a bully because, well, I comment on things Cooke says online. On the other hand, Cooke actually argues that people who don't like what Cooke says have no right to comment on Cooke's Things Cooke will not allow me to comment on at Cooke's blog, period, and would not allow anyone to comment in such a manner anyway. The rule on Cooke's blog is to sing Cooke's praises, or get banned. But, in the same article, Cooke suggests that people do exactly what I am doing, write on their own blog....but then complains because I write about some of the sillier things Cooke says. This is mainly a blog about issue that affect transsexuals, and since a lot of those issues have to do with idiocy from extremist transgender activists, that is who I write about a lot. And yes, I consider Cooke to be an extremist transgender activist. Now, Cooke has several choices. Cooke can, and I realize this is not going to happen, get a clue and perhaps change some of the sillier things written. Cooke can ignore me. Or Cooke can continue whining about what I say. But no, Cooke is not going to shut me up.Now, granted, I would ban Cooke from writing some of what Cooke writes about me (that darn privacy rule), but not for disagreeing with me. To Cooke, just disagreeing is bullying. Cooke, as one might say, has issues. Or to put it another way, Cooke loves censorship. The question that always springs to my mind when people are so into censorship is, just what are they afraid of? The answer, of course, is the truth....

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Up until now, I have pretty much ignored that case of "Michelle" Kosilek, who is the infamous prisoner in Massachusetts who a Federal judge has rule is entitled to sex reassignment surgery (and yes, it is SEX reassignment surgery, not "gender reassignment surgery as there is no way to change gender) even though he is serving life without parole for the murder of his wife. And yes, I said "he" because there is no way this person is a woman (trans or otherwise), no way he is a transsexual, and really simply because, "It's a MAN, baby!"Kosilek murdered his wife, and the claim is made that he started his transition though at the time he of the murder though he had not changed is name, nor did he start hormones until he was in prison. Most likely, at the time, he was a crossdresser. He coldly strangled her, and left her body in a parking lot. Hardly an act consistent with his claim of being a woman. Yes, women murder, but his act was not typical of a woman, but is a very male style of murder. He tried to claim that he killed her in self-defense following an argument, no doubt over his crossdressing.

There is also evidence that Kosilek functions quite well, and does not actually need the operation, which would, of course, no doubt result in his transfer to a women's prison.

Kosilek killed his wife, and as such he gave up quite a bit of his rights, including, I believe, the right to force the state to pay for SRS. Even though he is serving a life sentence, there is no valid reason for him to have the surgery. It would be different if there was more evidence that he was a true transsexual. But this is just another case of a man, with a history of crossdressing, deciding, suddenly, to pursue SRS. I have seen nothing that indicates that Mr. Kosilek had any history of childhood gender identity issues. Everything in this case indicates that he is a crossdresser who, having aged, wants to "ake it to the next level." The taxpayers of his state should not be burdened with the cost, and any competent therapist would deny his request for surgery. Unfortunately, competence is increasingly being replaced by political correctness.

Personally, I agree with the policy that says that a person who is transsexual who enters prison should be frozen at the state of transition they were at the time of incarceration. If one is pre-transition, you stay there. On hormones, they are continued. And such. In the case of someone like Kosilek, where the sentence is life, well. tough. Killing someone has consequences. He should have thought about his future before he deprived his wife of hers.

The troll completely misrepresents my post by pretending to defend herself against my supposed and entirely fictitious claim that only I get to decide who is and who isn’t a women:

Now, where he gets this silliness from is, well it's beyond me, since that is not remotely what I said. Mr. Williams devotes a lot of time and effort into trying to rewrite the history of the term "transgender" in order to force it on those who do not identify that way. I have taken him to task for that, and I might add, I have noticed when his arguments are refuted, he resorts to ad hominem attacks, such as calling the person challenging him a troll.Now, as to Mr. Williams claim that I am contradictory, I would point out that I have never said that he has to call himself anything. I have never said, nor would I ever say, that he should not be allowed to call himself a woman. I would not even claim that Colleen Francis, the pervert in Washington State, who has a propensity for forcing his penis on teenage girls (who, according to him, just need to be "informed") has to call himself a man. I'm just not going to lie, and call him one. I am not going to pander to his delusions. But hey, as I say, he call call himself anything he wants.And I find Mr. Williams' comment very telling:

I therefore thought I’d make sure that everyone but Jenifer had an opportunity to fully comment on her pablum here.

Unlike myself, Mr. Williams does carefully censor comments in order to maintain the illusion that his, uh, logic and wit, are unassailable. That is one of his more male attributes. I really dislike having to moderate comments, but a couple of rather nasty trolls make it necessary. The person who apparently complained that their post required approval had their post approved a bit over 30 minutes later. I would have done it sooner, but hey, I was not at my computer. Apparently, in that time, Williams was notified, and posted his rather snarky comments on his web site. Oh, and I would like to note that Mr. Williams also has no regard for people's privacy. I do not not use my real name here. Mr. Williams, of course, being a gender fascist extraordinaire, presumes to use people's names when they have made it clear that they wish to remain private. As does, Suzan Cooke.

And finally, the primary purpose of this blog is to do exactly what Mr. Williams and Cooke hate...to expose them for what they really are. Both go to great lengths to carefully control responses. Mr. Williams, or Cooke for that matter, could have posted here, but they would not have been able to control the argument. That is something they really can't deal with. It has to be where they are in control, or they don't want to play...

Monday, October 15, 2012

Alas, I guess the truth hurts... Suzan Cooke has posted another rant about me over at "Women Born Transsexual." Oh well... I know Cooke hates having faults pointed out, but it is going to happen from time to time. Not that anyone takes Cooke all that seriously anymore. Except those few transgenders who are eating it up now that Cooke has become one of their staunchest defenders. In fact, in a bit of irony, the kook who was the first of two recent abusive posters is, so far, the only one who has responded to Cooke's post. I suspect he may also be the fool that was trying to attack me here. I always figured he would be back. Or, it could be a rather nasty troll who has been stalking around the Internet for years. No, Cooke is, if nothing else, a bit of a coward. Cooke will only respond from a position where Cooke controls the discussion. I have made it clear that Cooke is welcome to post here, but I doubt it will ever happen. Cooke really can't stand up in a fair fight. Unless the odds are stacked in Cooke's favor, Cooke shies away. When Cooke started "Women Born Transsexual," I posted a comment welcoming Cooke to the Blogosphere. Cooke's response was anything but polite. After that, for quite some time, I pretty much ignored what was said there, though I did read it for the occasional laugh out loud moment. Cooke is nothing, if not absurdly funny at times.Well, I will continue pointing out when Cooke makes some absurd remark. I am really not interested in engaging in a tit for tat with Cooke, but I can tell when something I have said has hit a nerve. As I said, Cooke has gone from being extremely nasty (once calling a post-op who had chosen to stay with her wife a "skin transvestite") to close to being effectively a member of the transgender extremists I refer to as "gender fascists." Granted, Cooke hasn't quite reached the point of insisting that people accept the label of "transgender." But it is getting close. Hey, I am sure Cooke will finally reach the goal of becoming the Alpha Tranny yet.Oh, and I notice that Cooke hated Aria Blue, and the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense." Granted, the person at "Enough Nonsense" apparently had the goods on Cooke, and pretty much confirmed what I always suspected...that Cooke has some major issues, particularly with insecurity. But I also notice that Cooke did not mention that the person who wrote "Enough Nonsense" was basically blackmailed into shutting down. I wonder if the same thing happened to Aria. And now I wonder, did Cooke perhaps have something to do with it? Probably not, but Cooke apparently has no problem with REAL bullying. Anyway, it is good to know that I hit a nerve. Cooke is the type who needs to be brought down a notch occasionally. And when Cooke starts slinging nasty insults, you know Cooke has been..... I mean really, "Classic Trannie Skanks?" That is, no pun intended, a real classic. As I said, Cooke is nothing, if not good for a laugh. But, then again, this is the fool who gave the world the silliness of "Women Born Transsexual...," the only term that might top "Womyn Born Womym" as truly absurd.UPDATE:I checked in and was not particularly to find that Gender Fascist and Cyberstalker "Autumn" Sandeen has add his two cents worth (and vastly over priced at that) on the subject. Sandeen, who spent TWENTY years in the Navy is claiming he "never really passed as a man." Gee, I wonder where he got that from? It certainly was not a part of his story in the past. In fact, when he first posted photos of himself in his Navy drag costume, he bragged about his twenty years worth of stripes showing "good conduct." Yeah, like he would have lasted 20 minutes in the military if he did not pass as 100% all-American macho male. Uh huh... No, Sandeen clearly picked up on something I have pointed out...that us hated classic transsexuals, who were not lucky enough to have found the means to transition early, did lead horrible lives until we did. Sandeen was a happy go lucky crossdresser. Oh, I am sure he slipped into something frilly when he got the chance, but the rest of the time, you know he was all man, or he would have been run out of the service, and not in the official way. They wouldn't have given him the chance. He would have been begging for a discharge instead of waiting 20 years and then, at the last minute, claiming disability.Oh, and now Sandeen is trying to play the victim, claiming having someone respond to his stupidity causes him to "trigger." Good grief... We can only hope he actually does do everyone a favor and crawls under a rock and shuts up. Though I admit, I would miss the humor...Yes, Sandeen and Cooke...two peas in a pod.

When I started this blog, I made it a policy that I would have an open comment policy. The only restriction was no anonymous comments, and the only rule was no invasions of privacy. That policy has worked pretty well...until lately. A few months ago, I had an abusive commenter, and I discovered that it was pretty much impossible to block anyone from commenting here. I deleted her comments until she got the message, and gave up.But that sort of thing is tiresome, and it requires pretty constant vigilance. Today, I was lucky. I caught a comment just as it was posted, and yes, it contained a nasty message that was a serious violation of the rules. Specifically the one concerning privacy. It was immediately deleted, but it also contained a threat that it would just be the first of many. I know that sort of commenter, and well, I don't have the time to monitor the board constantly.So, the new policy, reluctantly put into place, is all comments are subject to moderation. The rules otherwise remain in place. The only comments that will not be passed through are ones that violate the one rule. So, don't bother, you will be deleted. Otherwise, I promise to get your posts up as soon as possible, and to respond when appropriate.And as I suspected, the troll in question sent several nasty little messages...a few got through before the change took place, but now the new policy is in place, and the last from him was blocked. Isn't that the way it goes...some troll has to ruin it for everyone else.

Friday, October 12, 2012

For years, Suzan Cooke was a terror on the Internet. Cooke took a pretty absolutist position that, quite frankly, was more akin to Charlotte Goiar than anyone else. Cooke would mock anyone who admitted to being delayed in their transition. In Cooke's extremist view, the information was all there...we just weren't motivated. That, of course, was a complete load of crap.

Cooke claims to have known from the age of four or five. Not quite the "I was three years old, sitting under my mother's piano..." narrative, but close. I've often joked, my mother didn't have a piano, to I was a bit delayed.

Cooke would make a big deal out of having transitioned early. Some of us simply did not have that luxury. Cooke seemed to be immune to understanding that not everyone fell into that time-line sweet spot where April Ashley and Christine Jorgensen were common knowledge.

But to hear Cooke tell it, if you didn't transition as a near teenager, you were at the very least, suspect. Basically, the bottom line was, if you weren't Suzan Cooke, you were suspect, but that was not quite said, just implied.

Now, Cooke has gone to the complete opposite extreme. Now Cooke will buy almost any load of crap spewed by anyone remotely claiming to be trans-anything.

Yes, there are a range of stories. But there is still a big difference between legitimate, and the silliness we get from kooks like "Autumn" Sandeen and as mentioned in another post, "Colleen Francis." No, such people are not transsexual, and they are not women, trans or otherwise.

When someone comes along and tells about how they had a successful career in the military, retiring after twenty years, and then "suddenly" realized they are really a woman (if they are honest they will include the fact that they were strongly identified as a crossdresser) I am sorry, but I have to cry foul.

Yes, some of us were delayed in our transitions. In my case, I knew something was wrong as a child. But I simply did not have a frame of reference that allowed for any realistic possibility of correcting my situation. Boys who felt like girls were called a "sissy," and well, being a sissy got you a world of hurt, both from one's father, as well as from your peers. I learned to hide my feelings and desires. Not always very well, and I still suffered a lot.

I discovered the term "transvestite" from a Dear Abby column, and I researched the topic as much as I could at that point in time, but it never quite seemed to fit. But it was the only term I knew. The first I ever heard about the concept of transsexualism was on a show called The Joe Pyne Show. He did a show about Christine Jorgensen, but it was extremely vague on details. I learned that there was a way of "changing sex," but I could not imagine how it would work, and the show made it seem very sordid. The first I discovered in terms of details was in the book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex by Dr. David Rubin. There it was described in such horrid language that I thought it all horrifying. I forget the exact words, but it was something like "an open wound where their genitals used to be." Not remotely the actual results of surgery but I did not know better at the time.

When I was in college, I discovered Canary Conn, and for the first time I realized that SRS was possible. I immediately hit the library and what I discovered convinced me I could not possibly pursue that path. Having grown up with an abusive father, and such, I was literally afraid of men. Like many women in such situations, I thought I was attracted to other women, and I would be a lesbian after surgery. But everything I read said this was not possible. You had to be attracted to men. Now, Cooke has tried to claim that bisexuality, and even lesbianism was acceptable to therapists, but I didn't have any idea where to find one, and what I read, that was written by supposed experts, told me there was no need to bother.

So, thinking I had no choice, I got married, to get away from my father as much as anything else, and the marriage produced one child.

It was ironic, when I learned that transition was possible, and actually began, I discovered that I was attracted to men after all. I had some setbacks along the way (being married has a way of doing that) but I made it, and I am happy.

But, and this is important, my life was a mess as a man. I never had a successful career, and most of my jobs ended after a relatively short period. I spent years keeping house. It was, quite simply, the role I was more suited to. Now, I am happy, successful, and getting on with my life. Unlike so many who transition and wind up on mental disability as they seem suddenly to be non-functional. Funny, but that alone should tell them something.

Cooke, for years, made people miserable by attacking their histories. Now Cooke is trying to tell us all that anything goes, and we should accept even the most ridiculous claims. The real truth is, transsexuals remain rare. Perhaps our stories don't always fit the "classic narrative" made famous by Christine Jorgensen, Jan Morris, and ironically, Renee Richards (who probably lied about a lot of it). But they do have a certain resonance, and some just don't fit at all. I wonder if there is anyone Cooke wouldn't accept now.

Cooke is like some people I have met who, after joining Alcoholics Anonymous, and becoming sober are convinced that anyone who has a single drink is an alcoholic in denial. Even if you drink with friends one evening a week, you, in their mind, should join AA and get sober. Cooke has, for reasons that probably have more to do with being romantically involved with someone who transitioned later than would have been acceptable, has "seen the light" and now will accept almost any silliness. Sad really, as Cooke is contributing to people who basically are doing more harm to themselves, and others, than good. As I say, from one extreme to another...

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

One of the biggest issues for transgender activists is over the right of men to enter women's spaces. In Washington state, this has really gotten out of hand. A middle-aged man, no I will not refer to this perve as a even a "trans woman," he is a pervert, has won the right to force himself into the women's locker room at Evergreen State College. Yes, this intact male is allowed to show his shortcomings to any and all women who wish to take a shower.Worse, he has been allowed to do so when teenage girls are present. A high school Girls Swim Team was told that they either had to share the shower with him, or they would be forced into a smaller ancillary locker room.Sorry, but this is an outrage.

Yes, "Colleen Francis" who is a 45 year old man, retired from the US Army after 20 years as a supply sergeant, married three times, has three adult children and two daughters aged 7 and 5, is actually being allowed to show his privates in front of teenage girls if they want to use the women's locker room after swim meets. The college cites state gender identity protection laws as requiring such accommodation of this man's desires.

He is on hormones, as well as a variety of drugs for mental health issues, including lithium. He is known as "Fae Raven” (a name also used by a fetish model in the UK) in the “BDSM Community” and describes himself as:“polyamorous, bisexual and kinky.” Until very recently, he identified (don't they always) as a heterosexual crossdresser. And, of course, he has made it clear that he has no intentions of having SRS. He likes his boy parts, likes using his boy parts, and plans to keep them.

Actually, in a saner place and time, he would be required to stay away from teenage girls, and women would be protected from him In fact, a more proper course of action would be to hold this person against his will as he is clearly a threat to others. But, that will probably not happen until he actually hurts someone.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

I have, on more than one occasion, commented on the gender fascists who become oh so upset at the idea that a transsexual might decline to be called "transgender." These people insist that we have to adopt a label that many of us are very uncomfortable with. As I have pointed out, "transgender" is most often associated with the concept of "transgressing gender," which is not how I see myself, how I behave, or what motivates me. One of the worst offenders in this regard, perhaps the single worst offenders in this regard, is "Cristan" Williams, a very disturbed man out in Texas who clearly made a mistake having SRS. Mr.Williams is obviously unhappy being a woman, and puts a lot of effort into making sure that he is seen as actually being a man in drag. That is, assuming that Williams has actually had surgery. We do, after all, have others like "Autumn" Sandeen who try to lie and claim to have had surgery when they have only being castrated, and have no intentions of giving up that which marks them as male.Well, now Mr. Williams has gone and had a hissy fit over something in Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity by Julia Serano. Mr. Williams is beside himself over this passage:

While “MTF” may be useful as an adjective, as it describes the direction of my transition, using it as a noun – i.e., literally referring to me as a male-to-female” – completely negates the fact that I identify and live as a woman. Personally, I believe that popular use of “MTF” or “FTM” over “trans woman” or “trans man” (which are more respectful, easier to say, and less easily confused with one another) reflects either a conscious or unconscious desire on the part of many cissexuals to distinguish transsexual women and men from their cissexual counterparts.

Apparently, Mr. Williams now wishes to tell people that, not only can they not object to being labeled as transgender, they must now accept the label "MTF" even if they don't care for that either. I bet he would really go ballistic over the fact that I also object to being labeled a "transwoman," or "trans woman." I identify as a woman. No qualifiers, no apologies, no excuses. I did not go through all I have gone through to have the albatross of my past forever hung round my neck.

I am not interested in being viewed as what I came to refer to as a "Woman, but..." as in, "Oh yes she is a very nice woman, but you know she is really a man..." or, "She is a woman, but she used to be a man..." or, "I think you make a pretty good woman for someone who was a man..."

Nope, just a woman is fine with me. If Mr. Williams wants to be a man, that is his right, but he should respect the wishes of others. Not that he is ever likely to actually do so.

About Me

Copyright Notice

All original content of this blog is copyright 2017 by J.U. and all rights are reserved.

Comment Policy

Just so there is no confusion, and to make sure that certain gender fascists cannot make false claims, I want to make clear my policy concerning comments. The only rule, and it is a hard and fast one, is "NO INVASIONS OF PRIVACY!" That is, if you post information about me, such as my name, or other private information, your post will not see the light of day. After having a couple of rather nasty trolls try to get around this, I have had to do something I really dislike. Because Blogger does not allow me to block individuals, I now have to approve all comments. But, if your comment does not violate the one rule, it will be approved. So please, don't go running to someone and claim you were censored...especially someone with an established history of censoring posts to prevent actually having to defend his silliness...